Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

Sick pay shock as reclaim scheme disappears

by
8th Apr 2014
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

One of the less trumpeted changes of the new tax year is causing consternation among some businesses, who have only discovered this week that they can no longer claim back statutory sick pay (SSP) disbursements from their payments to HMRC.

The most succinct official explanation came in Employer Bulletin 46 in February, which confirmed the percentage threshold scheme (PTS) for SSP would be dropped at the end of the 2013-14 tax year.

Software developer David Forbes first alerted the community about the issue in November and a Keytime tax tip subsequently discussed the demise of the PTS, which used to allow employers to reclaim SSP payments to sick employees if they amounted to more than 13% of their NIC liabilities for the month.

The record-keeping requirements associated with the PTS will be dropped, but HMRC warned employers will still be required to maintain SSP records for PAYE purposes. “However, employers will have the freedom to keep these records in a more flexible manner which best suits their organisation,” the department added helpfully.

The decision was made following a government review that found “PTS has not encouraged employers to actively manage sickness absence in the workplace”. Instead, it will reinvest the £50m or so saved in a new Health and Work Service (HWS). The gov.uk website explains that when it is up and running later this year, the HWS will provide occupational health support and advice for small employers and their employees. 

Anyone who has been off sick for four weeks will be referred to the HWS, which will carry out an assessment and give employees a return to work plan with information on how to get appropriate help and advice. A tax exemption of £500 is also promised for medical treatments recommended by the HWS or an employer-arranged occupational health service.

If you were used to reclaiming payments via RTI submissions, you will discover on your next pay run that the mechanism is no longer available following last weekend's HMRC software upgrade.

The reactions from AccountingWEB members ranged from the perplexed to incandescent, but in spite of several previous debates, the message has not really percolated through to many employers.

On the first of April, another member came on to explain the reaction of one client who had just found out about the change. “As a small employer myself, we cannot afford to pay people people when they are off sick,” commented Refs8. While small firms might be able to cope with short-term illnesses, “long-term would be a nightmare”.

Orignially, Democratus explained, SSP was introduced alongside a 1% reduction in employer’s NIC. This time around, the move to full funding by the employer was accompanied by the introduction of the £2,000 employer’s NIC allowance.

However that link was not made in a letter sent to employers this week by Prime Minister David Cameron extolling the benefit of the employer’s allowance. What the government gives with one hand, it can take with the other; it just may not be so keen to tell you about it.

Tags:

Replies (16)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By 0098087
10th Apr 2014 12:34

What

I love is the help for small businesses from this government. There is none. With auto enrolment and the fact that the regulator has basically said small businesses are on their own, it's a disgrace.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Lyndaw
10th Apr 2014 12:44

SSP

They give with one hand and take away with another........

Thanks (0)
avatar
By richards1
10th Apr 2014 12:45

Options

I wonder what the situation is about being able to alter contracts of employment without any penalty now that SSP has disappeared. i.e. that there is now n o sick pay at all.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Duggimon:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
10th Apr 2014 14:24

No contract change

richards1 wrote:
I wonder what the situation is about being able to alter contracts of employment without any penalty now that SSP has disappeared. i.e. that there is now n o sick pay at all.
The reclaim has disappeared. The requirement to pay SSP has not. There is no change of employment contracts.
Thanks (0)
avatar
By philfromleeds
10th Apr 2014 13:13

SSP RECLAIM

I feel their should be an insurance product available to employers to pay workers when they are off sick. The rules should be an employer can claim if his employee is off at least 2 weeks or a hospital sicknote advises refraining from work. 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Manchester_man:
avatar
By daveforbes
10th Apr 2014 14:26

Great idea

philfromleeds wrote:

I feel their should be an insurance product available to employers to pay workers when they are off sick. The rules should be an employer can claim if his employee is off at least 2 weeks or a hospital sicknote advises refraining from work. 

... and this insurance scheme could be national, just got to think of a good name for it.  :-)

Thanks (5)
avatar
By nickselectaccounting
10th Apr 2014 14:52

Health & Welfare System

I have wrote to my MP, FSB & AAT about this. Not particularly in that order.

It is particularly interesting how the Health & Welfare Scheme is still at Tender stage and the DWP have yet to appoint a private firm in which to manage it. The Scheme may be up and running by late 2014.

Another cost for small employers in additional to flexible working hours that has kicked in on 01 April 2014.

Another cost for small employers in addition to Auto Enrolment that will really take full force in the next 12-18 months. Including increased staff costs, HR costs, Financial Advice Costs oh. . and Accountancy costs.

Considering Small business were portrayed as the bankbone of the UK economy, it is without fear of contradiction the the UK economy must be increasingly spineless. . .

 

A lot of unhappy voters are going to be voting with their feet this time next year. . . 

Thanks (2)
Replying to Samantha20:
avatar
By leon0001
11th Apr 2014 14:51

bankbone?

nickselectaccounting wrote:

I have wrote to my MP, FSB & AAT about this. Not particularly in that order.

It is particularly interesting how the Health & Welfare Scheme is still at Tender stage and the DWP have yet to appoint a private firm in which to manage it. The Scheme may be up and running by late 2014.

Another cost for small employers in additional to flexible working hours that has kicked in on 01 April 2014.

Another cost for small employers in addition to Auto Enrolment that will really take full force in the next 12-18 months. Including increased staff costs, HR costs, Financial Advice Costs oh. . and Accountancy costs.

Considering Small business were portrayed as the bankbone of the UK economy, it is without fear of contradiction the the UK economy must be increasingly spineless. . .

 

A lot of unhappy voters are going to be voting with their feet this time next year. . . 

 

I think you meant backbone... however, on second thoughts, bankbone is probably right!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By elaynam
10th Apr 2014 19:00

Great Idea

I heartily agree there should be some mechanism that small employers could access but I dare say the cost would outweigh the benefits, insurance being the expense it is.  Let's just thank our lucky stars it is only SSP the government is not refunding to employers, and not SMP, SPP an not forgetting SAP.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By SJH-ADVDIPMA
10th Apr 2014 22:09

We're all doomed.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By philfromleeds
11th Apr 2014 12:27

NO SSP RECLAIM

The reason for this change is that it was believed by the government that the PTS gave employers an incentive not to encourage long term sick employees to return to the workplace. The government has wierd ideas. They are ruling by dividing the nation. They talk about hard working families and those out of work. I saw a Panorama programme about people earning in benefits far more than I, a wage. 

The problem is most of the benefits go to pay the rent to private landlords. We need more council homes that can not be bought. The right to buy a council house seemed a very nice idea but has led to a shortage of affordable homes  to rent. Labour should change the rules and councils should only sell homes if they are going to replace them. Also the large discounts should go out the window.

 Under these new arangement an employer who is making good money can afford to pay SSP or more, but an employer sho is struggling can not afford to pay SSP or less. The SSP system should be that if the employers profit plus directors remuneration is below a certain amount, then SSP can be reclaimed. It would be based on the previous year. There would ofcourse have to be other rules like profit per director or partner.

Back to homes, we must build more homes especially in London. There needs to be a well designed high rise block with play areas on certain floors and CCTV.

 

Thanks (2)
avatar
By 0098087
11th Apr 2014 15:09

Write to MP. Good luck. Ours is a waste of time. Only consolation is that UKIP may dent him enough to get him. Every Wednesday the PM says he's standing up for British business. Not sure where..

Thanks (0)
avatar
By 0098087
11th Apr 2014 15:27

Ours is the one who came up with no NI for 18-21 year olds. Great plan when there's a shortfall.

We didn't need auto enrolment. Should have lower rates NI for lower paid. Start at £50 a week and start taking NI. Stupid nonsense which is causing more problems.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Isla
12th Apr 2014 01:40

How will the payment of SSP be enforced and by whom?

I manage the payroll for an employer who has 3 members of staff and contracts of employment stating that full pay will be paid for the first two weeks of sickness then half pay for the next two weeks in any calendar year.  If the employee has a period of sickness over these 4 weeks in a year they don't receive any pay.  Up to now he has paid SSP because it could be reclaimed, now that this is no longer an option he is just refusing to pay anything other than what it states on the contracts.  So can anyone tell me who is going to cover the SSP for employee's in this situation or who is going to force the employer to pay the SSP?  People in such a situation do need money to live on. One employee is going to be unable to work for several months because she is receiving treatment for cancer.  The employer just says he is not paying her, who is going to force him to make these payments?  He does not see compliance with employment law as a priority in any way and in general ignores it.  His employees are also required to use holidays to cover any sick leave or hospital appointments they have and any extended absence means the employee is not only unwell but does not get any holiday either.

It is all very well for the government to make the regulations but in reality there is no one to  ensure an employer such as this actually complies.  If any employee objects to anything he very forcefully manages them out the door for good.  There are countless numbers of employers like this and really in my experience they just do what they want.  The fact that I am telling him he has to pay this employee at least the rate of SSP for 28 weeks is something he assures me he intends to completely ignore.

Thanks (0)
Replying to gainsborough:
avatar
By sevin
26th Apr 2014 18:59

How will the payment of SSP be enforced and by whom?

Isla wrote:

I manage the payroll for an employer who has 3 members of staff and contracts of employment stating that full pay will be paid for the first two weeks of sickness then half pay for the next two weeks in any calendar year.  If the employee has a period of sickness over these 4 weeks in a year they don't receive any pay.  Up to now he has paid SSP because it could be reclaimed, now that this is no longer an option he is just refusing to pay anything other than what it states on the contracts.  So can anyone tell me who is going to cover the SSP for employee's in this situation or who is going to force the employer to pay the SSP?  People in such a situation do need money to live on. One employee is going to be unable to work for several months because she is receiving treatment for cancer.  The employer just says he is not paying her, who is going to force him to make these payments?  He does not see compliance with employment law as a priority in any way and in general ignores it.  His employees are also required to use holidays to cover any sick leave or hospital appointments they have and any extended absence means the employee is not only unwell but does not get any holiday either.

It is all very well for the government to make the regulations but in reality there is no one to  ensure an employer such as this actually complies.  If any employee objects to anything he very forcefully manages them out the door for good.  There are countless numbers of employers like this and really in my experience they just do what they want.  The fact that I am telling him he has to pay this employee at least the rate of SSP for 28 weeks is something he assures me he intends to completely ignore.

What makes this whole situation worse or certainly a detriment for the employee is he/she now has to pay the intial fees (upto £1200 ) to appeal to an Employment Law Tribunal thus giving even more power to this type of employer.  It appears that we may have entered an age of further employment law abuse simply because the goverment wants to have the whole cake and eat it themselves.  .

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By airgeadagam
15th Apr 2014 16:15

Sick Pay Shock

After having received my nice letter from Mr Cameron I thought it only fair that I write back to point this new development out to him in case he wasn't aware of it.

Poor me has had to take six months off work in the last two years and it was nice to know that I wasn't having to worry about finding money to pay my own sick pay while I was lying in the Beatson.

Thanks (0)